Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple vs the Law

formularsumo.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 450 posts

Re: Apple vs the Law

#431

Post by tharga8616 »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #18
pyman wrote: post #9

Note: I know some folks working in big tech won't like this comment, but it's time we talk about the elephant in the room. Tim Sweeney is the only billionaire and computer scientist who's actually fighting against inequality. The big difference between him and folks like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Larry Page, and Marc Benioff, is that while those billionaires talk about universal basic income to make up for the mass layo…

>those billionaires talk about universal basic income Because they don't expect that UBI money to come from their profits, but from the taxes paid by the working class. They're just cosplaying socialists to score brownie points like they did with rainbow flags in the past, knowing it will be on other people's money, and it's all performative. Edit: @pyman >My biggest fear is that UBI can turn into a tool for control,…

UBI is UNCONDITIONAL. It can't be used to control, and, being universal, there's no way it can create clientelism as do conditioned aid today.

Please, explain to me how regular cash payments made individually, unconditionally to everyone, can make us more and not less dependent from the market and the state, which are the same thing if you look closely.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#432

Post by tharga8616 »

LoganDark wrote: post #48
pyman wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My biggest fear is that UBI can turn into a tool for control, give people just enough to survive, to eat, keep the lights on, and afford some AI tokens to stay productive in the system.

This sounds similar to the welfare trap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap

Which is why UBI is UNCONDITIONAL.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#433

Post by shkkmo »

wredcoll wrote: post #354
shkkmo wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has <60% market share in the US. It's pretty dominant, but there are definitely still real competitors.

If we're categorizing companies by headquarter location, where are these competitors located?

I'm sure you could look that up for yourself pretty easily if you were actually curious and not trying to make some unknown point by asking the question.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#434

Post by msgodel »

tempodox wrote: post #371
msgodel wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny because only my Linux laptop running pulseaudio ever seems to work reliably with bluetooth headphones. I had to go back to wired headphones on my work mac because half the time when I needed them they just couldn't connect.

What's really funny is that I'm getting a working BT connection between Debian and the headset, but there's still no audio. Presumably I'm missing some driver, but I don't know which.

I think rather pulseaudio either isn't configured correctly or you haven't authorized the connection (Bluetooth devices will pair, then connect, then you have to authorize them. In bluetoothctl you get an asynchronous yes/no prompt, I don't know what this looks like in the GUI bluetooth management tools.)

Generally drivers on Linux are all kind of shipped together. Unless you have some really niche device that's so rare your distro doesn't ship the module for it with its normal "linux" package you're not missing drivers. That's almost certainly not the case with A2DP/HFP especially if bluetooth itself already works.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#435

Post by msgodel »

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #364
msgodel wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the case with any kind of computer and the iPhone is not particularly secure, you're just locked out of yours.

Well, if I have a state actor after me then I have bigger problems already. Security is relative concept. For most people being able to browse internet, add/remove apps, and be sure that they will not break things goes a long way.

iPhone exploits are cheap enough that you don't need to be a state actor to have access to them. Heck the app store review process hardly even instruments the apps so you can just ship semi targeted malware that way.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#436

Post by int_19h »

carlosjobim wrote: post #429
int_19h wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soviet Union certainly had industries , but the only large industrialists I can think of were some pre-WW2 experiments with foreign companies invited to set up shop there where it was deemed the fastest way to get access to some piece of tech and the associated know-how. Other than that, can you give any examples of Soviet industrialists, large or otherwise?

The Soviet Union had some giant corporations with powerful leaders. The best known of these are the leaders of military industry, such as Pavel Sukhoi or Mikhail Kalashnikov, or Tupolev. Were they not industrialists? They performed the same functions as leaders of Western industry. Soviet military corporations even competed against each other for government contracts. The industrialist could also be a party functiona…

They were not industrialists in this sense because those people did not own the industries they managed. The state owned it, and they were hired managers who could be ousted from their position at any moment, and if that happened they immediately lost all their power and control.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#437

Post by musicale »

abirch wrote: post #256
Tainnor wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all huge companies in my view. In addition to them there are also countless small to medium sized companies that nobody's ever heard of, that don't experience hypergrowth but have slow and steady growth - especially in the B2B sector. I've worked at some such companies.

Siemens has 330,000 employees. I'd always consider that huge.

Only twice the size of mega-corps like Apple.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#438

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

burnerthrow008 wrote: post #335
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that Apple have a competing service that doesn't have to pay the money. That's the issue, and it needs to be resolved for Apple to be compliant with EU law. Or they can leave, if they think that makes more sense for their business.

> The problem here is that Apple have a competing service that doesn't have to pay the money. On the contrary, Apple does pay the money... to the artists . Which is something that Spotify doesn't do as much. https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a... Strangely, despite this rather obvious market power (monopsony) that Spotify has in negotiating below-market rates with their suppliers, the EC has…

> Apple does pay the money... to the artists.

Spotify pay something absurd like 80% of revenue to the record labels (who theoretically pay artists).

And obviously Apple will need to invest more into their competing service to get scale.

None of this changes the fundamental point that Apple are self-dealing here, which might be fine in a world where they didn't control the app store.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#439

Post by msgodel »

interpol_p wrote: post #365
msgodel wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah I forgot Apple advertises managing SSO as a feature of iOS and not an external service like sane people would. Well. I guess they'll have to choose between opening it up like every other company does or acknowledge that it's a separate pay for service then. They do a lot of that kind of thing and my answer for all of it is the same: Open it up to everyone or acknowledge it's a pay-for cloud service that has nothin…

Yeah, who knows if the EU would see it that way. They may require Apple to provide first-party APIs that are equivalent in power to what they offer developers who submit via the App Store. Either way, my post was pointing out that it is non-trivial engineering effort to do this, and I think that's still the case. Hell, just releasing my own personal code as open source — auditing it, decoupling libraries, removing in…

Yeah I just have a hard time feeling sympathetic for Apple. They played the game pathologically and these are the consequences. If they wanted sympathy they should have tried to get along with everyone else.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#440

Post by alt227 »

shuckles wrote: post #328
alt227 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats a lot of assumptions to back up your own point.

Your point was PWAs are necessary for small businesses to distribute apps. I just spelled out what that meant, since businesses with >100 employees can just use enterprise app distribution on iOS.

I would personally say that the barrier to entry for Apple enterprise app distribution is very very high, and requires so many hoops to be jumped through that it would take a much larger company than 100 staff to warrant that

https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/deployment/depce7cefc4...

Post reply on HN